Before breaking for lunch, Justice Amit Bansal, after viewing the video, asked Mangal’s counsel, senior advocate Chander Lall, to seek instructions on whether the objectionable portions could be taken down
BREAKING: Delhi High Court Asks Youtuber Mohak Mangal to Remove Words Like “Hafta Wasooli”, “Gunda Raj” from Video Targeting ANI
NEW DELHI: While hearing news agency ANI’s defamation suit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal over claims that his recent YouTube video contains defamatory and disparaging content against the agency, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 29) made an oral observation that some words used in the video appeared to be “offending”.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday continued hearing news agency ANI’s defamation lawsuit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who is accused of making disparaging and defamatory statements in a recent video. During the proceedings, the Court took note of the language and content used in the video and observed that some portions were “offending” and amounted to disparagement.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing ANI, argued that Mangal was not only using ANI’s copyrighted videos without permission but was also earning money by posting defamatory content.
“He has 4.2M subscribers, he is using my content to earn money, they attract eyeballs. He puts my registered trademark. I have placed transcription of a fake conversation with me, he states in minute letters that it is a recreation,” Sibal said.
He also pointed to posts made by comedians and fact-checkers Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, claiming they were part of a larger plan to harm ANI’s reputation.
“This is triggering all this. This is their modus operandi to put pressure on me,” he added.
Sibal further told the Court that there were active campaigns online targeting ANI:
“Live posts on YouTube calling for boycotting ANI, expletives are being used against me.”
In response, Senior Advocate Chander Lall, representing Mohak Mangal along with Advocate Nakul Gandhi, argued that ANI was not following proper legal procedures in handling copyright complaints. He claimed that Mangal was being pressured financially.
“If they have a grievance against me, they can’t call me and extort money from me that I will block your channel if you don’t pay,” Lall submitted.
However, Justice Amit Bansal questioned Mangal’s justification for the remarks made in the video.
“You want to use videos without taking license. You use, why would you come out with these kind of statements? How do you justify that?” Justice Bansal asked.
Lall responded that the onus was on ANI to first prove copyright infringement. But the Court directed him to focus on the defamatory and disparaging nature of the content.
“The videos on the face of it are disparagement,” Justice Bansal remarked, adding that Mangal should have made the video in a more “civilised manner”.
After watching the video, Justice Bansal instructed Lall to seek instructions on whether the defamatory portions could be taken down.
Lall, in his defense, maintained:
“They have no right to license and they are extorting Rs.40 lakh from me. I must have a remedy which is going to press.”
According to the video published by Mangal on May 25, he accused ANI of extortion and blackmail, claiming ANI issued copyright strikes on his YouTube videos for using small clips from their content. He alleged that an ANI representative demanded over Rs.40 lakh to withdraw those strikes.
ANI, however, said that the video was a deliberate attempt to insult and harm the agency’s reputation and registered trademarks. ANI’s petition claims that Mangal had admitted to using their original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, and despite this, went ahead and published a defamatory video.
ANI further said the video aimed to discourage others from using ANI’s services, and it included falsehoods, misused trademarks, and defamatory remarks.
The agency also raised concerns over others like Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, who had shared Mangal’s video on their platforms.
According to ANI’s petition:
“In addition to widely sharing the Impugned Video, these Defendants have independently published further false, baseless, and malicious statements targeting the Plaintiff and its founders. These statements are devoid of any factual or legal foundation and are clearly intended to malign the Plaintiff’s reputation and lower its estimation in the eyes of the public.”
ANI’s lawyer, from Unum Law, started the argument by explaining the context of the dispute.
He said, “The background is that I have copyright in content generated by me, which is available on the internet.”
Justice Amit Bansal asked, “You generate your own video?” To which ANI’s counsel responded, “Yes mylord. We generate and syndicate our content. They have at 6 occasions infringed my content.”
The ANI lawyer added that “YouTube offers concept of 3 strikes after which channel would be deleted.” Instead of removing content after receiving copyright complaints, ANI alleged that the respondents were resorting to public defamation.
The lawyer said, “Instead of removing our content given copyright infringement they are making defamatory remarks inspite using our copyright content.”
Further, ANI’s lawyer claimed that the accused were profiting from ANI’s content while tarnishing its image.
“He is earning money out these mylord. he is not a common citizen.”
The lawyer added, “This man is calling inspite using our trademark calling for blocking and unsubscribing our channel.”
Expressing the fallout of these online attacks, the ANI lawyer told the court, “I am getting hate mail mylord because of all of this…” and added, “mylord 3rd parties are boycotting and calling for boycott because defendant 1 Youtuber Mohak Mangal made a call for this.”
He further disclosed the financial background of the dispute:
“First I offered him 45 lakh for subscription of our content services and then agreed to 24 lakh then he comes and make these defamatory remarks.”
Justice Bansal inquired, “Is mohak mangal still active.”
ANI’s lawyer replied, “Yes mylord as only 2 strikes are there with 3 his channel will be deleted within 10 days.”
He continued, “Discussing process of YouTube strike and counter strike…”
He added that while copyright complaints were being processed, the creator launched a media campaign calling ANI names like “thugs” and “gunda”, and misusing their trademark to demand blocking of the ANI channel.
“He is calling me thugs and gunda… also they are using my trademark calling me to block it. I have 8.3 mn subscribers.
Senior Advocate Chander Lall appeared for Mangal, along with Advocates Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb, and Tanish Gupta.
On May 28, Asian News International (ANI) has filed a defamation suit before the Delhi High Court against YouTuber Mohak Mangal, alleging that his recent video contains false and damaging statements against the news agency.
The case, filed through Advocate Akshit Mago.
ANI has also made comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair defendants in the case for sharing the video on their X (formerly Twitter) handles.
ANI claims that these individuals have not only amplified the allegedly defamatory video but have also made separate remarks against the agency and its founders without any legal or factual basis.
Mohak Mangal had uploaded a video on May 25 accusing ANI of blackmail and extortion. In the video, Mangal said ANI issued copyright strikes against his YouTube channel for using short clips of its content.
He further claimed that an ANI representative contacted him and asked for a payment of over Rs 40 lakh to remove the copyright strikes.
In the plea, ANI argues that the video was made with the purpose of harming the agency’s reputation and insulting its services that are protected under registered trademarks.
ALSO READ: ANI vs OpenAI: Delhi High Court Hears Copyright Infringement Case Against ChatGPT
ANI emphasized that Mangal openly admitted to using ANI’s original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, and despite this, went ahead and published a video full of defamatory statements.
ANI said the video contains intentional falsehoods that discredit its reputation and discourage people from using its services. It also claimed that its trademarks were misused along with defamatory remarks in the video.
The news agency strongly objected to others sharing the video and posting additional content targeting it and its leadership.
The lawsuit further states,
“In addition to widely sharing the Impugned Video, these Defendants have independently published further false, baseless, and malicious statements targeting the Plaintiff and its founders. These statements are devoid of any factual or legal foundation and are clearly intended to malign the Plaintiff’s reputation and lower its estimation in the eyes of the public.”
ANI is seeking the following reliefs from the court:
- A permanent and mandatory injunction against Mohak Mangal, asking him to take down the video, stop using ANI’s trademarks, and refrain from publishing or sharing any further defamatory or false content related to ANI or its services.
- Similar restraining orders against Kunal Kamra, Mohammed Zubair, and others to stop them from making or circulating any defamatory or misleading statements against ANI.
ALSO READ: Wikipedia Withdraws Delhi HC Appeal Against ANI Following SC Verdict
Adding to the controversy, a tweet by X user Roshan Rai went viral, supporting Mohak Mangal’s claims and targeting ANI’s leadership.
The tweet read:
“So as per Mohak Mangal, ANI owned by Smita Dalaal Prakash is sending copyright strikes to big YouTube creators and then asking lakhs in extortion money. This video must reach everyone, how rotten is this lady and her organisation.”
Case Details: ANI MEDIA PVT LTD v/s MOHAK MANGAL & ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
